Sima cave people not exactly Neanderthals, researchers say

“What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

“This site has been excavated continuously since 1984,” Martínez added. “After thirty years, we have recovered nearly 7,000 human fossils corresponding to all skeletal regions of at least 28 individuals. This extraordinary collection includes 17 fragmentary skulls, many of which are very complete.”

From this, they deduce that

“We think based on the morphology that the Sima people were part of the Neanderthal clade,” Arsuaga said, “although not necessarily direct ancestors to the classic Neanderthals.” They were part of an early European lineage that includes Neanderthals, but is more primitive than the later Pleistocene variety.

Critically, many of the Neandertal-derived features the researchers observed were related to mastication, or chewing. “It seems these modifications had to do with an intensive use of the frontal teeth,” Arsuaga said. “The incisors show a great wear as if they had been used as a ‘third hand,” typical of Neanderthals.”

The work of Arsuaga et al. suggests that facial modification was the first step in Neandertal evolution. This mosaic pattern fits the prediction of the accretion model.

This story is interesting from the perspective that it is written as if it were some kind of history when it is at most guesses based on fragments, and the next team reporting may well say something quite different.

Fascinating if you don’t take it too seriously.

Here’s a handy guide to the complexities surrounding human evolution: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

It is not guesses based on fragments. That is absurd. It is research based on a huge cache of human fossil material and represents decades of investigations. Over 2200 papers have been written on the material from this suite of caves. If you are going to be insulting, at least do some research first.

Jimpothicus, I’m afraid that some people will not accept evidence placed before them. These same people wouldn’t accept a fossil lineage for humans even if we had a fossil from every generation from the origin of life to present day. It simply is contrary to their faith-based TRUTH.

As to another extensive study of fossil teeth, we find no evidence of the last common ancestor before Neanderthals and modern humans,,

No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
“None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence – Casey Luskin – June 2011
Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10]http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-9266481

Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism – Jonathan M. – December 9, 2012
Excerpt: “Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable.”http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67181.html

Moreover, Neanderthals are now strongly suggested to be merely ‘kissing cousins’ to humans:

New method confirms humans and Neanderthals interbred – April 8, 2014
Excerpt: Technical objections to the idea that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of Eurasians have been overcome, thanks to a genome analysis method described in the April 2014 issue of the journal Genetics.http://phys.org/news/2014-04-m.....rbred.html

Neanderthal Myth and Orwellian Double-Think – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – 2012
Excerpt: Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical. Neanderthals are unequivocally fully human based on a number of actual genetic studies using ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains. The DNA data fully confirms the numerous anatomical studies performed on a wide variety of skeletal remains found in diverse geographical regions across Europe and the Middle East. The anatomical data not only shows that Neanderthals had fully human bone structure, but larger brains and more robust features. In fact, to the uncritical observer, they appear superior to modern humans.http://designed-dna.org/blog/f.....b8c-33.php

Neanderthals behaving like us – Dec. 2013
Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. They illustrate the maxim: “if we don’t look for it, we won’t find it.”
Another recent finding that is related to this theme is that a Neanderthal community in Italy organised their cave in a way that is recognizably human. The punchline is the same: here are “close cousins” that do not deserve to be called pre-human.http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ng_like_us

From the Science Daily story: “What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins – December 4, 2013
Excerpt: “Our expectation was that it would be a very early Neanderthal,” Dr. Meyer said.
But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the (80,000 year old) ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar.
“Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.”
The extra research confirmed that the DNA belonged on the Denisovan branch of the human family tree.
The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.,,,
“Now we have to rethink the whole story.”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12.....1&amp;

Researchers decode complete genome of extinct humans (Denisovans) from a fossil finger bone – February 2012
Excerpt: The big news, of course, is that there probably wasn’t a separate Neandertal or Denisovan “species” just a different group of humans.,,, The genetic difference between Neandertals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nger-bone/

You are a theistic evolutionist working with Biologos. This makes you just as stupid as any creationist. You seem to think that you can reconcile your bible tales with evolution. The only way you can do that is by twisting what you read in there. That’s intellectual dishonesty too. I noticed that Acartia_bogart didn’t scold you for your religious beliefs like he has for others here. I guess it would be a case of “the enemy of enemy is my friend”. All people who believe in god regardless of wether they believe in evolution or not is the enemy. Be consistent.

Aren’t Neanderthals and Denisovans just another variety of modern humans. Is there any indication that they could not inner breed with a modern human? I have Neanderthal DNA in me as do most people of the world.

And if they are just another variety of human, what is the significance of the find? Interesting, yes, but of what significance?

I think the OP was trying to point out how tiring it is to hear and see the evolution of theories.

2200 is a lot of papers and doesn’t mean that there isn’t lots of research and information there. It’s the conclusions and dissemination of the information getting put through the opinion filter that get’s frustrating.

perhaps as BA77 implicated, they are just versions of the same species. But, that’s just the evolution of my own theories.

As to the Accretian Model.
from The Accretian Model of Neandertal Evolution Jul 2001abstract on accretian model
Abstract:The Accretion model of Neandertal evolution specifies that this group of Late Pleistocene hominids evolved in partial or complete genetic isolation from the rest of humanity through the gradual accumulation of distinctive morphological traits in European populations. As they became more common, these traits also became less variable, according to those workers who developed the model. Its supporters propose that genetic drift caused this evolution, resulting from an initial small European population size and either complete isolation or drastic reduction in gene flow between this deme and contemporary human populations elsewhere. Here, we test an evolutionary model of gene flow between regions against fossil data from the European population of the Middle and Late Pleistocene. The results of the analysis clearly show that the European population was not significantly divergent from its contemporaries, even in a subset of traits chosen to show the maximum differences between Europeans and other populations. The pattern of changes, over time within Europe of the traits in this subset, does not support the Accretion model, either because the characters did not change in the manner specified by the model or because the characters did not change at all. From these data, we can conclude that special phenomena such as near-complete isolation of the European population during the Pleistocene are not required to explain the pattern of evolution in this region.

On a totally different note, how do you contact the site admin about a website problem?

“I don’t have any problem with people believing in a god. I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief.”

WTF?
That’s anyone who believes in god. All evidence is in conflict with their beliefs so you must have a problem with everyone who believes in god. So, why haven’t you made fun of Jimpithecus for the idiot that he is? He may accept evolution but he would accept other things in the bible that go against science like miracles and the dead rising. So, have it.

” So, why haven’t you made fun of Jimpithecus for the idiot that he is? He may accept evolution but he would accept other things in the bible that go against science like miracles and the dead rising. So, have it.”

I don’t stoop down to name calling just because I disagree with someone. When you do that you just detract from your own argument.

For crying out loud, it might well be, as your anguished complaint seems to suggest, a hurtful case of lese-majeste towards, presumably, your clan, but really…!

‘It is research based on a huge cache of human fossil material.’

‘Fossil material’? You mean ‘fossil fragments’, don’t you?

‘and represents decades of investigations.’
What possible relevance does that have? A tribe of your simian ancestors (according to your own preferred pedigree)
might spend decades studying them, but they would still remain a large collection of fragments. Or some very gifted anthropologists might do so for decades, but they would still remain a large collection of fragments.

‘Over 2200 papers have been written on the material from this suite of caves.’

During my brief flirtation with tertiary education during the late sixties, T S Eliot was The Man for Shakespearian criticism, the most fashionable commentator. Poor old Skeat, who’d been doing so well, since the late eighteen hundreds, was apparently passe.

However, I don’t think you need to be a particularly insightful judge of character to realise that Eliot, as well as an anti-semite, like Shakespeare, was also a fascist sympathizer, and would not have come close to possessing the magnanimity and breadth of human empathy that Shakespeare displayed.

But here’s the thing. It was clear to me that people just followed the latest fashions in literature in universities, just as slavishly as they might have, ‘haute couture’, as students of fashion at an Art College. They might still be paying homage to Eliot as the premier Shakespearian critic. And I very much doubt that the sum total of human knowledge or understanding of the Sima people is a function of the multiplicity of people searching for an illuminating fossil.

The thing is though, that is the nature of tertiary education. I should think everyone studying for a doctorate would be looking for an ‘angle’, a small angle, but not a paradigm leap.

‘From the Science Daily story: “What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

JLAfan2001 said September 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm “…I apologize for the tone of my initial post. I’m not really a Darwinist as my messages would imply. I’m just a struggling christian who is trying to come to terms with the evidence for evolution.”

Ab said …”I’m afraid that some people will not accept evidence placed before them.”

I couldn’t agree more Ab 😉 no matter how many times Darwinian nonsense is refuted, no matter how many failed predictions are made, no matter how many cover ups and fraud we witness, you simply will NOT accept the evidence placed before you.

You also said “I don’t have any problem with people believing in a god. I only have a problem when they ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief.”

I would also like to point out that blind faith, belief and commitment to evolutionary miracles and magical natural processes, can and do cause the Darwin faithful to “ignore all evidence that may be in conflict with their belief.” as well.

“The study also finds that the potential human ancestors discovered in Europe are morphologically closer to Neanderthals than to modern humans. This suggests the line leading to Neanderthals arose around 1 million years ago and the divergence of humans took place much earlier than previously thought. Other studies have placed the divergence around 350,000 years ago.” This matches the genetic information that suggests that the split between modern humans and Neandertals likely occurred as a result of the migration of post Homo erectus hominins out of Africa to southern Europe.

As far as Casey’s quote is concerned, in his argument to establish “common design,” he consistently ignores the shared mistakes and, more importantly, shared ERV fragments. That case, alone, is extremely compelling.

From the Collard and Wood paper, a bit further down:

“We stress that these results do not indicate that the cladistic methodology is flawed, or that primate craniodental data are problematic for phylogenetic reconstruction at all taxonomic levels. Rather, our results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins”

What is specifically being explored here is at the lower taxonomic levels. We are reconstructing phylogenetic relationships within one genera, and a late surviving set of related species, to boot. Luskin, as he often does, only quoted the part of the paper that suited his purposes and conveniently ignored that which did not.

With regard to the corollary mentioned, given the above quote, they are clearly writing of the higher taxonomic levels.

Jimpithecus
I’m not a troll. I’m just someone who is tired off all the BS thrown at us from ceationists, IDists and theistic evolutionists. You show that Luskin is dishonest in his science. You and the others from Biologos are dishonest in your theology and you KNOW it. You twist the bible to show people that evolution and christianity are compatible. IT IS NOT. You just can’t put a new spin on texts that the historical church took as literal and say “see, all fixed”. Either one distorts the science or one distorts the theology. Stop tricking others into believing your lies. Darwin killed go. Accept it, Jim.

humbled
You are correct. I gave up my faith when I found the evidence for evolution. I’m a Nihilist now. I found that creationists were liers too with the science. All christians are liers and deserve to be ridiculed. Creationists were right about one thing, though. Evolution kills faith and that’s why you people keep others indoctrinated against it’s “evil”.

“The thing is though, that is the nature of tertiary education. I should think everyone studying for a doctorate would be looking for an ‘angle’, a small angle, but not a paradigm leap.

You know nothing about research if you think that any of them would not jump at the chance of being responsible for a paradigm shift. Darwin’s theory was one of these. The new synthesis was another. Neutral theory is yet another. Each of these met with initial resistance but were eventually accepted as the best explanation at the time. In spite of ID’s attempts, it is nowhere close to being another paradigm shift simply because it’s emphasis has always been on cherry picking points that it thinks are contradictory to evolutionary theory.

JLAFan2001. I was, perhaps, harsh in my response but I saw invective and responded. We, at BioLogos believe in the God of the Bible. We also recognize that science should never be used to try to “prove” that God exists or does not exist, but should be evaluated on its own merits. You are quite correct that I find many instances of what I find “ethically challenged” outpourings from the DI and I am not the only one that has found this. I am currently reading Science and Human Origins and have found it maddening in its subtle deceptions, fabrications and persistent misunderstandings of how evolution actually works.

None of this either supports or negates the existence of God. That is a faith issue. My purpose here, as it is elsewhere, is to show where they are getting the science wrong. If we don’t approach the science correctly and honestly, that is a bad witness. It is against that that I fight.

And Biologos constant deceptions, fabrications and persistent misunderstandings of the bible is what I find maddening. I find theistic evolutionists “ethically challenged”. I noticed yo never addressed this in your previous comment. I also fight against bad science but also fight against your theology. Biologos and Discovery Institute are two sides of the same coin. Both deceivers. Tell me that you have never had to read more into scripture and add what the text was never meant to say in order to reconcile evolution. Either you did that or you view the bible as full of errors in which case you are lying to yourself to continue to think it should have any more merit than other myths.

‘Between 1978 and 1981, Nature published a remarkable series of letters about Cladistics and the reliability of evolutionary claims.
,,,Patterson and his allies treated Darwinian evolution as something that could be questioned. “They could do perfectly well without it,” he told me, in one of my interviews with him.’
– Tom Bethellhttp://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-503165

November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History By Colin Patterson – Audio CD and Annotated Transcript
Excerpt: Here are a few of Patterson’s famous comments that you can now listen to and read in their full context:
“But it’s true that for the last eighteen months or so, I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.”
“,,,last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.”
,,, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?”…
,,,evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics.”
– Patterson worked at the British Museum of Natural History in London, was one of the leaders of the philosophy of biological systematics known as “transformed cladistics.”http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm

Seeing as the fossil record is not nearly as conducive to Darwinian claims as you would like it to be, you go on to try to bolster your case by claiming ERV’s make your case compelling. Yet, ERV’s are hardly anything for a Darwinist to get excited about.

Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells – Jan. 23, 2013
Excerpt: “What we’ve observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells,” said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. “In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn’t found in any other cell types.http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....133930.htm

Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs – (Nov. 26, 2012)
Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, “This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!”http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....192838.htm

Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It – September 2011
Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case.http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-buy-it/

In fact, the entire 98.5% genetic similarity myth of Darwinists is crumbling as our knowledge of genomics increases:

Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.http://www.icr.org/article/7856/

Then there is the little problem for you in that you have no empirical evidence that body plans are reducible to mutations in DNA:

Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

You do realize that you are asking us to prove something that you will always find a way out, right? No matter what we show you, it can be turned around and argued “how do you know it’s random?” If you can conduct an evolution experiment and predict what mutation will happen in any given environment over and over again then you will have evidence that it’s not random.

There is no grand conspiracy keeping evolutionary theory afloat. It is not a theory in crisis

It is not a theory because there is no such thing as evolutionary theory. At least I have never seen one and I have been reading about this for over 15 years. Please tell anyone just what the theory is supposed to be.

Darwinian evolution and all its modern variations is not a theory either. They are at best speculations that have been proven inconsistent with scientific findings.

So before you prattle more, you should tell us just what you believe and the basis for your beliefs.

You do realize that you are asking us to prove something that you will always find a way out, right? No matter what we show you, it can be turned around and argued “how do you know it’s random?” If you can conduct an evolution experiment and predict what mutation will happen in any given environment over and over again then you will have evidence that it’s not random.

More gibberish. You and Jimpithecus and Acartia_bogart should start a blog with all the nonsense you believe in. My question is does Barry pay people like this to comment here to make the pro-ID people look good.

“mosaic” is code for whenever character traits are found in disarray with regards to any kind of consistent evolutionary trend. of course, evolution predicts contradictions to evolution as well. it explains everything.

Jerry: “More gibberish. You and Jimpithecus and Acartia_bogart should start a blog with all the nonsense you believe in. My question is does Barry pay people like this to comment here to make the pro-ID people look good.”

Sorry Jerry, but there are plenty of comments and responses in UD that demonstrate exactly what JLA described. So how do you define his statement as gibberish?

Of note: where Darwinian theory most needs plasticity in order to be viable as a hypothesis, i.e. in developmental gene regulatory networks, is the place where it is found to be least flexible.

A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
Eric Davidsonhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

Yet, it is in these developmental gene regulatory networks where the greatest differences between chimps and humans are found!

Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144632.htm

“Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

Of further note:

Peer-Reviewed Paper: Development Needs Ontogenetic Information that Cannot Arise from Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms – Casey Luskin – June 2, 2014
Excerpt: Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA.” With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA.
This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA. (Read more here:)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86201.html

Thus, despite your belief that Darwinism is a fact as well established as gravity, the fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution has major unsettled issues that go directly to its theoretical core. In fact if Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being foundational to the atheistic/materialistic religion, it would be crushed by such findings.

JLAFan2001, your criticisms assume that we are attempting to view the bible as a science textbook and are twisting it to fit the science of the day. That is not what evolutionary creationists are doing. We are saying at the outset: “this is not a science textbook.”
Conrad Hyers noted that it is absurd for us to think that the Bible was written in such a way that we would, hey presto, understand its scientific truths some four thousand years later. If one reads the Bible in its cultural context and with an understanding of why it was written, no “deception” is necessary. There are very good reasons not to view the Bible as a science textbook. As Daniel Harlow puts it:

“If we were to insist that the Bible gives an accurate picture of the physical cosmos, then to do so with integrity, we would have to believe that the earth is flat, immobile, and resting on pillars; that the sky is solid and has windows in it; that the sun, moon, and stars are set in the sky and move along it like light bulbs along a track; that the sun literally rises, moves, and sets; that there is an ocean of water surrounding the earth; and that beyond the waters above the sky is the very heaven of God. That’s what the Bible says.”

We read the Bible for its scriptural truths and because it is a story about who God is and what He is to us. We don’t read it to figure out how the physical world works. If one reads the Bible as if it exactly described the physical world and universe around us, it would do two things: it would render one’s faith flat and lifeless and it would obviate any sort of correct understanding of said world and universe.

OK then, let us forget about all the conjecture, the extrapolation and the putting up of arguments that will supposedly just be “wiggled” out of. Let’s lay it out on the table.

By the way, as a side-track, you can hardly criticize and call those who reject evolution as anti-scientific and the like when the apparent “scientific community” accept multiverse theory and abiogenesis, neither of which have any credible evidence or mechanism/postulated theory for. That is what we sometimes refer to as the “Pot, kettle, black” scenario.

Anyway, as there is so much conjecture in these debates, and we cannot “observe” these long periods of time so we have to make inference, the onyl true way to settle this argument is through sound, mathematical models. Not the models like Einstein used where you stick in an arbitrary constant to avoid admitting the universe had a beginning, or some Darwinist program that positively sways and selects mutations that would never be selected for in nature as they offer nothing, but a realistic fair mathematical model. That also means, not covering the earht with 10 feet deep of bacteria as well.

To this we can turn to threads like ones Kairofocus has posted recently, thinking about the mathematics of randomly generating the most simplist organism present on earth. The problem is, even to get to that stage there is simply nowhere near enough time-space for this to occur. I.e. to generate the necessary functional information through random unguided chance to give the most simplist organism.

I have yet to see any convincing argument against such mathematical models and questions that take a fair unbiased approach. That is as well, not even taking into consideration effects outside simple genetics (epigenetics and non-DNA transmissible information). Please, do enlighten those of us who subscribe to ID rebuttals that address these problems and allow for a functional single-celled organism through mathematics of unguided random chance.

Until that can be done adequately, it does not matter what you find in the fossil record, it does not matter what you find molecularly (unless it changes the mechanism of evolution i.e. unguided random mutation and chance), evolution is falsified as it does not stand up to mathematical criteria. It is therefore mere extrapolation, assumption and conjecture founded on nothing substantial. Therefore, to claim it has more credence than a designer is also false despite whether you agree with the views of those that do subscribe to a designer or not (christian “God” or other god or alien intervention or whatever).

Once you provide us with solid mathematics to justify the random abilities of neo-Darwinism, I would also be grateful for explaining how acceptance of abiogenesis, with no understanding of a mechanism, no theory, and no proof except “it just had to have happened, somehow” is more “scientific” or justified than a transcendent force creating through design.

Secondly, I would love to understand a) the proof for detection of a multiverse (and why “we may never be able to detect it” is acceptable in science yet the same argument for a designer god is mocked and vehemently unacceptable in the scientific community), and b) assuming there is a multiverse, by what means or mechanisms are universes generated in the first place (and why those theories are more plausible than a transcendent god creating universes).

Thanks in advance for your wisdom, foresight and most importantly, proof of these things and why they have more evidence that clearly negates any possibility of a designer’s involvement.

Jimpithecus
I have seen this reasoning many times before and no christian has given me an adequate answer. Let’s see how you do.

1) Is the book of Genesis to be taken as historical or scientific?
A) If so then how do you reconcile science with the account as one can see it’s clearly wrong?
B) If not then where does the history start and the allegory end?
C) If it is metaphor or allegory then why did the historical church understand it as literal? Why should I believe the bible’s account over other creation myths? Why can’t I take the Norse account and say “this is what actually happened. Odin created the world except the account is not science or history just morality. Odin teaches us how to live through his metaphors.”
D) How do you reconcile Non historical Adam with the book of Romans?

Why should I believe what Biologos teaches over what the historical church has taught for centuries? It wasn’t until the enlightenment that catch-all metaphor began to appear more prominently. When science disproved the bible, you guys fell back on metaphor rather than admit you were wrong.

As I said, you either twist the meaning of the texts over centuries of teaching or you admit the bible is unreliable. Just positing metaphor doesn’t cut it.

Do you believe that Jesus is our God Lord savior? I do and there is two ways to look at this either everything in the bible is true or everything is false. Since Jesus claims to be God he is either speaking the truth when he talks about the truthfulness of the old testament or he is a liar, He can not be both.

You know the four pillars of the world, or corners the bible speak of is north, east, south and west….. you knew that right? The issue that people tend to forget about what they read in the Bible is an issue of translation. Hebrew has about 80 000 words and English has more than a million by now.

A Good example, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”. You have been bamboozled by atheists pointing out to you how crazy this is right, I mean the earth is a sphere right? Well the English word sphere was only invented in the 13th century.

I am glad that the bible has stayed as faithful as possible to the original words. As an intelligent being, I understand the context it was used 2000 years ago.

I just don’t see how Neanderthals and Denisovans (or whatever) can be counted as evidence for Darwinian evolution. All it shows is that there is a great variability in the human genome. We see a similarly great variety in the genomes of other species. Canines, for example, run the gamut from wolves and coyotes to Great Danes and diminutive Chihuahuas. No Darwinian evolution in the picture. Zilch.

I’m sure you’re right about the coveted nature of the paradigm shift, though, undergraduate level studies were as slavish as grammar-school ‘A’ Level studies, in my experience, and I evidently drew the unsound inference from that.

But there again, maybe undergraduates just read the set books and acknowledged authorities and parrot them for lack of interest or insight, confident that it will be enough to see them pass the exams.

However….. do you not see the foolishness of your contention, below?

‘Darwin’s theory was one of these. The new synthesis was another. Neutral theory is yet another. Each of these met with initial resistance but were eventually accepted as the best explanation at the time.

‘The BEST EXPLANATION AT THE TIME’ constitutes a paradigm shift!!!???? Well, that’s a new one on me. They might well have been taken for such at the time, for lack of knowledge, but, you know, a miss is as good as a mile…!

Indeed, it can be stated, rather, that while paradigm shifts created by others can bring out the worst of human nature in those who are supposed to be the best in their professions, opposition to the discoverers and their putatively-seminal discoveries is no guarantee of their validity.

1) Is the book of Genesis to be taken as historical or scientific?
A) If so then how do you reconcile science with the account as one can see it’s clearly wrong?
B) If not then where does the history start and the allegory end?
C) If it is metaphor or allegory then why did the historical church understand it as literal? Why should I believe the bible’s account over other creation myths? Why can’t I take the Norse account and say “this is what actually happened. Odin created the world except the account is not science or history just morality. Odin teaches us how to live through his metaphors.”
D) How do you reconcile Non historical Adam with the book of Romans?

#1 This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature.

#1A This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature.

#1B This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature.

#1C This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature.

#1D This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature.

Fan, you are on the wrong blog. You do not have the self discipline to separate your personal anxieties from empirical evidence. Your’e wasting your time here. You need to be somewhere where the exercise of your emotions are met with the echoes of those just like you, and where no one cares about searching for the actual truth of the matter.

Hello again JLAFan. I do enjoy your posts, as abrasive as they may be.

Judging by what you have said here and elsewhere, you used to be a creationist, but then abandoned that position. Is this correct?
I am a creationist myself. You have stated that creationists (in fact all Christians) deserve only ridicule, but surely you agree that an open minded creationist can be won over by reasonable arguments. Or was it ridicule that persuaded you that creationism was false?

I like to think that I am a pricipled seeker for truth. If good evidence in a valid argument is presented to me, I will try to make sure that I don’t reject it just because I don’t like the conclusion.
I would like to invite you to work with me so that we can discover the true nature of things together.

I too had a period where I questioned Christianity and creationism. I asked myself “How do I know that what I have been taught is true?”
I found that much of the evidence for evolution was not as powerful as it’s supporters claimed, but that the creationists were also inclined to overstate the evidence in their favor. However, there were a couple of ‘clinchers’. Two arguments (which have since been joined by a third) that absolutely proved to me… not that creationism or Christianity are true, but that materialism is false.

The first is the absolute empirical impossibility of life originating by chance. The materialist/naturalist counter argument is that “A million monkeys on a million typewriters working for a million years will eventually produce the works of Shakespear.” In other words, with enough time and enough chances, the seemingly impossible becomes probable.

But does it? What happens if we actually run the numbers?
Let’s say we almost have the first lifeform, except that it is missing one particular protein (this is a massive assumption that makes the case for the origin of life orders of magnitude easier). Proteins are strings of amino acids in a chain, and there are twenty different amino acids that are used in lifeforms. Let’s say the the magic protein that we need to complete the first life is 200 amino acids long (another generous assumption, proteins are usually much longer). What are the odds of randomly assembling this protein by chance?
Getting the first amino acid correct means selecting one amino acid out of twenty, so the odds of that are one in twenty. The odds of getting both the first and the second correct are calculated by multiplying the individual odds. so that would be one in twenty times twenty, or 1:20*20. It is easier to express this using exponents, in which case the odds for getting the entire protein right are 1:20^200.

Ok, so the odds are pretty low, but what about the number of chances we have to get it right? Well we can calculate those too. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80 (see wikipedia). The universe is claimed to be about 14 billion years old, which is about 10^17 seconds.
What this means is that if every atom in the universe were a protein with 20 amino acids, and every second they all recombined into different proteins and they had been doing this for entire (claimed) age of the universe, they would have made 10^97 different proteins. The chance of finding the correct combination of amino acids this way is less than 1 in 10^103.

That’s not enough. That’s not nearly enough. The number of combinations we need to search through is over 100 orders of magnitude larger than we we can search through by blind chance even with all those ridiculous assumptions that make the odds for blind chance easier.

I’ll go though the other ‘clinchers’ at another time I think. This post is already longer than I would like.

Axel: “‘The BEST EXPLANATION AT THE TIME’ constitutes a paradigm shift!!!???? Well, that’s a new one on me”

Read what I said more carefully. The “best explanation at the time” is the one that has some level of consensus at the time. The “paradigm shift” comes withe the explanation that replaces it or significantly modifies it.

General acceptance of ID would be another paradigm shift. But this will not happen until it stops using, as its fundament strategy, cherry picking and quote mining information that it thinks is not consistent with current evolutionary theory. If ID was the best explanation, evidence to support it will amass to the tipping point at which time the paradigm shift would occur.

JLA, you are emotional, confused and angry, this is normal for someone in your “condition”. You have chosen to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the ever growing body of evidence demolishing the short lived Victorian fantasy of evolution.

You claim to be a nihilist, a position common for those who lose their faith. If that is the case then why bother? Why get up, why go on living? Go eat, drink and be merry young one. Forget about trying to explain anything as nothing, in your confused worldview, can make any sense. It’s all just mutations, accidents and gobbledegoop.

StephenA
This long post amounts to nothing more than “god-of-the-gaps” or the argument from incredulity. We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition? Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it?

humbled
Yes, I’m angry. I don’t like to be fooled by creationists or theistic evolutionists on the science or theology. I haven’t chosen to stick my fingers in my ears. I don’t choose anything. There is no free will. I do what I do becuase my neurons make me. If the creation science was valid then my neurons would shift postions and believe in creationism. If creationism is correct, the majority of scientists would believe it. They are athiests because the scientific evidence for god isn’t there not because they use the science to disprove him.

Andre
So your following another lie instead? Whay don’t you and humbled go talk to your christian brother in love, Jimpithicus and tell him how wrong he is. The lord will guide you all into the truth.

Joe
What I’m saying is that no methodology will satisfy you. Science has come up with plenty of evidence to show evolution is random but you can always shift the goalposts and ask “how do we know that’s random?” If you think it’s designed then where are the experiments to show this? I want experiments not inferences, assertions or opinions. The experiment that I mentioned was to illistrate how you can show everyone that we are wrong about evolution. Show us that evolution is designed by experimentation. Stop sticking your figures in you ears and coming up with arguments that amount to nothing more than “I know you are but what am I”.

Upright Biped
My question wasn’t directed at you or ID (for once). It was directed at theistic evolution. If you don’t like the question, you don’t have to provide an answer.

Sorry, I wandered away for a bit–job, wife, kids, that sort of thing. I did not forget about post 44. Here is my short reply.
1). The book of Genesis is to be taken as historical. Insomuch as it can be taken scientifically at all, it reflects an understanding of science that is nearly 3500 years old and is, therefore, useless in interpreting the physical universe around us. Even after the time of Christ, Paul understood there to be a tripartite universe and it is reflected in his writing (thank you Dennis Lamoreux). To take the book of Genesis as science textbook does violation to the original intent of it and reduces it to a flat, lifeless text. It also leads to (dare I say it?) a view of the universe that borders on cultish. God’s word and his creation can’t disagree. While it is quite true that there are many, many things we don’t know about the universe, there are quite a many things that we do know and some of which slap us in the face. The age of the universe is one of these things. That creatures do evolve and have evolved is another. I have been studying the field of evolutionary biology as it pertains to human origins for thirty years. There is little to no doubt in my mind or the minds of those who are familiar with the data that evolution is perfectly adequate to explain it. Even creationists like Todd Wood know this. That he refuses to accept it is a result of his acceptance of the literal biblical hermeneutic.
2)When viewed in this way, the account is not clearly “wrong.” It is simply being misread by young earth creationists. Biblical scholars have, I will admit, struggled with this set of scriptures for hundreds of years and there are different models of interpretation. The Young earth creation position is, in fact, very recent and very few young earth creationists know from whence it comes.
3). Good question. There is one school of thought that argues that the entire “primeval history” as the first eleven chapters of Genesis are called, was tacked on to the Bible during the captivity, around 600 B.C. This would explain why there are no references to these events in the rest of the OT prior to this captivity (Isaiah 54 is probably a late addition, as well) and why most of the references are in the NT. The other issues with the Pentateuch involve the merging of two different copies after they were written down (Masoretic and Samaritan).

Why should you believe it? Depends entirely on whether or not you think Jesus Christ was who He said He was. If He was, you should believe it. If you don’t, then don’t. I would, at least, encourage you to take a look at FF Bruce’s The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? It is a short read but informative.
4). I reconcile the lack of a historical Adam with Romans with the understanding that Paul had been handed the Pentateuch, which, to the people of that time period, was the explanation for everything. It was no different than him believing that there was water above the sky (why else would it be blue?) and hell was straight down.

Science only disproves the Bible if you interpet the Bible as a science textbook. It was never intended for that. Read this to get a better understanding of what was likely intended.

I have no illusions that these answers will be acceptable. I do not think that any answers that I provide will be. As you wrote, you are very angry. I do not think I can penetrate that. I only submit that we, who write for BioLogos, are sincere and try, within the power that we have, to be honest. We know that the science is out there, and, if you interpret the science in an honest fashion, it necessitates a rethink of how Genesis must have been intended.

There is nothing in science that disputes the existence of an historical Adam. If God created Adam, then He could also have created the subsequent gene pool from which humans flow.

That is unless one does not believe in God. So the reasoning goes I do not believe in God, therefore there could not have been any Adam based on known genetic processes (Adam is an absurdity even if know genetics processes could explain a first human.). Also, but if one believes in God and God does not interact with the world, then a human such as Adam is not possible. This is only a non Christian view of the world since Christianity is based on God interacting with the world. (similarly not Judaism or Islam)

But if one believes in God and God does interact with the world (e.g. Christianity, Judaism and Islam ), then a human such as Adam is easily explained. So if BioLogos does not believe in an historical Adam, they must be a non Christian religious organization because Adam is a non-negotiable part of Christianity.

In other words, the bible was written by bronze age nomads who didn’t know anything about science and got it all wrong. You think I should trust it as the word of god and not ignorant desert dwellers, is that it?

Todd wood suffers from fideism. I made it known that this is what christianity does to people. He knows the truth but refuses to accept it because his god tells him to.

Jesus references Adam, Noah, Moses, Jonah all of which there is no evidence that they existed. How can Jesus be the son of god knowing that there was no literal adam? Oh, I forgot. He was using metaphors and parables, right? See, it saves everything.

If Paul was wrong on his theology of adam then the book of romans should be stripped from the bible as it is obviously wrong. this is just more proof that the bible was written by superstitious men.

Do you see why christians are stupid? Can’t you see that this book is making you stupid? The science has disproved it. Do the intellectual thing and walk away from your faith. It’s wrong. There is only so much mental gymnastics one can do before he accpets that it’s all BS.

Jerry
“So if BioLogos does not believe in an historical Adam, they must be a non Christian religious organization because Adam is a non-negotiable part of Christianity.”

Sure, it is. Aren’t you listening. It’s all metaphor, parables and allegory. The jewsih people didn’t know there science well and the text shows that but that would be detrimental to christianity. Biologos position is to rewrite the texts to suit their beliefs undoing centuries of church doctrine. I would like to see if god gave them permission to do that. Biologos should changer the name to BaLoney cause they aren’t fooling anyone but themselves.

Do you see why christians are stupid? Can’t you see that this book is making you stupid? The science has disproved it. Do the intellectual thing and walk away from your faith. It’s wrong. There is only so much mental gymnastics one can do before he accpets that it’s all BS.

There are a lot of mistakes, misconceptions and blatant lies in Wikipedia. Does this mean that we should declare that Wikipedia is all BS?

Sometime within the next few months, I will be releasing a speech learning/recognition program called Rebel Speech. What makes Rebel Speech unique and revolutionary is not so much that it can learn to recognise speech in any language just by listening, not unlike humans. The surprising thing is that I arrived at the design of Rebel Speech’s perceptual learning mechanism by decoding a number of metaphorical passages in the Bible that describe how the brain works. Rebel Speech will make the blood of atheists boil in their arteries and veins. It will be fun to watch. Wait for it.

This long post amounts to nothing more than “god-of-the-gaps” or the argument from incredulity. We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition? Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it?

You have failed to understand the post, and God of the gaps. You cannot take one crucial bit of evolution, show how it is impossible (not unknown – but impossible given the model) then claim that is god of the gaps argument. The true meaning of god of the gaps is critiquing those who fill the gaps science has not discovered. A mathematical model that assesses the current evolutionary theory and shows it is not possible within the natural laws of the universe is not a “gap in scientific knowledge” (i.e. we don’t know how it happened), it is a complete rebuttal of the possibility through naturalistic means. That is certainly not god of the gaps at all, unless you are simply moving the goalposts to an irrational level.

So what if you found amino acids on meteorites? It means nothing. What was the chirality of these? Were they all L-handed? Amino acids could surely have formed given the right conditions, what on earth does that prove? Again, you have mis-understood the post. I could throw some cement around and some might land in the vague shape of a brick. Does that mean if I throw around cement enough I will have a fully formed, habital house?

The point is it doesn’t matter if you can have all the building blocks formed – lipids, nucleic acids, amino acids…there is still absolutely no observable support of these components, by naturalistic means assembling into an ordered structure to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining & self-repairing machine. Humans cannot even do that themselves through their own design. It has never ever been shown to occur in nature, by natural means. You can have all the amino acids in the world and that makes no difference.

So if we fail on abiogenesis then it really does not matter how much proof there seems for evolution, you have to entertain the idea that something intelligent designed and created life. Otherwise it is pure blind faith my friend. Contingency demands a force outside of the system (universe) for the flow of energy in the system and a transcendent God is the only current plausible mechanism for that. So yes it is much harder to believe that nature poofed it.

Ironically though, I actually agree with much of what you say about theistic evolution. Personally if I could embrace evolution as a mechanism for life with UCD and there was what I believed sufficient evidence for it, I would be an atheist. If nature can do it, we must ambrace atheism as it is a valid hypothesis.

The point is it doesn’t matter if you can have all the building blocks formed – lipids, nucleic acids, amino acids…there is still absolutely no observable support of these components, by naturalistic means assembling into an ordered structure to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining & self-repairing machine. Humans cannot even do that themselves through their own design. It has never ever been shown to occur in nature, by natural means. You can have all the amino acids in the world and that makes no difference.

I could not have said it better than you wrote it. Thanks.

If someday I could figure out how to create, not a living system, but just a software system that accurately simulates in all details the interrelated processes and mechanisms behind the cell fate determination in the first few days of human embryonic development, then all the top universities in the world will bestow on me their highest honorary degrees, while all the electronic and electrical engineers, along with computer scientists from the whole world, will come to my town, camp in front of my house, sing songs to me, bow their heads when I appear on my front door or a window, and will beg me to show them at least a small portion of the code that does such a marvelous thing, then I will consider sharing it with the rest of them, but suddenly, completely unexpectedly, the alarm clock will wake me up and the dream will be over. That’s the closest we have been able to get to that knowledge so far. And now you spend your precious time on trying to discuss with someone who apparently does not have any motivation to hear your arguments? My friend, in my book that’s called ‘waste of time’ or ‘squandered time’ because the sincere inquirers sound different, because they humbly seek true knowledge. I have argued here in this site and in other locations, but only in extremely rare occasions I have enjoyed such discussions.
We are in the midst of a heated confrontation between two opposite irreconcilable worldview positions. No scientific discussions are possible, unless the two involved sides are truly eager to understand each other’s point of view, even without agreeing, in order to find the truth.
Yes, there are many mysteries around us, but the greatest mystery of all is that we are alive, discussing, loving, crying, laughing, and wondering how all this is possible.
For many years I had no coherent answer to any fundamental question. But then mysteriously things started to change radically. How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now I’m found; was blind but now I see. My chains are gone, I’ve been set free. My God, my Savior has ransomed me, and like a flood His mercy rains unending love, amazing grace.
I have good news for those who want to argue with you and me: God loves them too. I know it, because He loves me, despite the obvious fact that I don’t deserve it. I pray for their reconciliation with their Creator, before it’s too late.
May God bless you.
PS. Still I don’t know the answers to many questions, but I know the One who knows it all, and that’s enough for me. He has given us this possibility to discover some of the wonders of His creation. He is revealing more to us through the research of many hard working scientists around the world. That’s why we look forward, with much anticipation, to reading new reports from the labs. These seem very exciting times for those of us who like science.
Sing hallelujah! Rejoice!
Kind regards.

Jerry: “There is nothing in science that disputes the existence of an historical Adam. If God created Adam, then He could also have created the subsequent gene pool from which humans flow.”

There is also nothing in science that disputes Zeus, Odin, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Leprechauns. All ID does is identify things that science hasn’t explained (or may never explain) and concludes that this is evidence of god….sorry…. a non Devine designer.

Acartia_bogart, although you accuse Theists of living in a land of make believe, comparing Theistic beliefs to

Zeus, Odin, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Leprechauns

The fact of the matter is that materialism/naturalism is the worldview that is mired in unrestrained imagination. I been asking atheists for empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is true for years and I have not seen any evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can create a single protein,

“Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
– Doug Axe PhD.http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

much less have I seen any empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes are capable of rearranging trillions of cells, with a billion proteins each, into another organism.

In fact, according to the empirical evidence, the only thing Darwinian processes are good at is destroying functional information, not creating it:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

Dr. Behe has searched high and low, and every where in between, for empirical evidence for Darwinian claims, and has found that,,,

EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
Excerpt: Biologist Michael Behe observes:
“Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

That a theory would be defended tooth and nail without any empirical support is simply insane And yet here you sit AB day after day defending the Darwinian fairy tale as if it had a leg to stand on.

AB, you also referred to the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument that atheists are so fond of using.

God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.
John Lennox

Let me try to enlighten you a little further AB, as hard as it may be for you to accept, it is Atheistic Naturalism that has had to retreat further and further into ‘randomness of the gaps’ arguments as science has progressed. Here are a few examples showing that steady retreat:

2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (M. Denton).-

6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’ (cannot be created or destroyed) ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as true:

StephenA
This long post amounts to nothing more than “god-of-the-gaps” or the argument from incredulity.

You clearly didn’t grasp the maths if that’s what you think it was. It’s not ‘I can’t see how it could have happened’ it’s ‘It is mathematically impossible for it to have happened’.

We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition?

Did you miss the part of my argument where I assumed that every atom in the universe was a protein made up of 200 amino acids? And that they were shifting (evolving) into a different protein made up of 200 amino acids every second? It wasn’t even close to enough.

Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it?

Yes. You are asking me to disregard mathematical logic. If I start doing that, I may as well start believing 2+2=5.

And now you spend your precious time on trying to discuss with someone who apparently does not have any motivation to hear your arguments? My friend, in my book that’s called ‘waste of time’ or ‘squandered time’ because the sincere inquirers sound different, because they humbly seek true knowledge. I have argued here in this site and in other locations, but only in extremely rare occasions I have enjoyed such discussions.

I realize that you are talking about Dr JDD’s response to JLAFan rather than my own, but I don’t think either of us are completely wasting our time. This is the internet and
there are always lurkers watching. Besides, speaking for myself, I can see myself in JLAFan’s position if I had not found the evidence and arguments I did when I started questioning what I had been taught.

Coercion is the inevitable, last resort of faulty science, corrupted religion, and failed politics.

They each start their decline with dishonesty and indoctrination, expand with social pressure and propaganda, continue with threats and intimidation, dominate with expulsion or incarceration, and end with misery, poverty, and mass murder.

The lament of tyrants is “But it’s for a good cause and we just know that we’re right. If you people would have just cooperated better, everything would have worked out.”

If there were any lessons to be learned from a social disaster, a third of the current generation will be in denial, another third will blame it on something, and the following generation will have forgotten what happened and are soon ready and willing for their own fleecing once again.

I realize that you are talking about Dr JDD’s response to JLAFan rather than my own, but I don’t think either of us are completely wasting our time. This is the internet and there are always lurkers watching. Besides, speaking for myself, I can see myself in JLAFan’s position if I had not found the evidence and arguments I did when I started questioning what I had been taught.

I think I understand your very persuasive arguments. Apparently you have convinced me that I misused some concepts in my comment. Thank you for taking the time to bring this up to my attention.

I enjoyed reading your post # 56.
As an addendum to my post # 84, we should be very alert to discern the sincere seeker from the mockers that are only interested in ridiculing others. However, sometimes it’s very difficult to tell one from the other. But you’re right about the unknown readers out there. Perhaps that alone justifies the time consumed on the discussions. Because we care about them, even though they don’t know it.
Again, thank you for the constructive correction. I accept it.
Rev. 22:21

As per Stephen I was going to post much the same – I know with some people I am fighting a lost cause. But as this is the internet with many more viewers than posters I see it as an opportunity to highlight what I believe to be an erroneous approach and logic to the situation. That may help just 1 person come closer to finding truth and if even just 1 then it is worth it (even if it isn’t the person I am addressing on this thread!).

You know, we are in such a privileged position these days with the internet and sites like these. When I first got into science and started being challenged by such questions, my knoweldge was much more limited (student!), the internet was not as widespread as it is now and information was harder to get hold of. I did not have money to buy books and they were often out of date. For such a person, it can be really tough if you are also convicted of a particular faith that the naturalists will mock you of. It is easy to sway on that faith. Today, we are privileged as we can expose the hand-waving nonsense and highlight the erroneous logic with vast sources of information and tie together the latest research to make more sense of it all. For those seeking, there are easier ways to find.

I think if many hardcore atheistic evolutionary biologists had their way, you would need to pass a test saying “I affirm naturalistic evolution” before having access to any peer-reviewed article on the web. Thankfully, that is not the case!

I also appreciate your gracious attitude in response to Stephen’s post. It again highlights a positive aspect of those persuaded by such a faith as ours – namely that we can largely accept correction and admit where we get things wrong. Sadly, I fail to see that much in the naturalist camp especially with such a debate as there could not possibly be a single inch given to those darn creationists and IDiots!

It was the internet that made me lose my faith, not helped it. It it wasn’t for the internet, I would be ignornat of all the evidence for evoltuion as many creationists turned evolutionists would have been. The internet is actually aiding in the death of christianity.

Tell me, Dr JDD. Why would OoL bring your faith to a halt if there was a naturalistic account for it but nothing else would? Science has found naturalistic mechansims to the formation of the earth, of stars, plant growth, chemical compositions, origins of emotions, mental states, atoms, gravity, earthquakes, the weather, evolution etc and none of that has shaken your faith. But evolution via the Ool problem solved and that would deconvert you. This doesn’t makes sense. You may say it’s because of the high probablity of the Ool but what about the probablity of hydrogen and oxygen forming water? Or planst using quantum mechanics for photosynthesis? or the higss boson providing other particles mass? Or neural correlates with mental states? Do these have lower probablities than the Ool?

Why would this one thing cause your faith to falter but no other natural mechanism would?

If god guides the Ool and evolution, does he guide chemistry or cosmology or botany or genetics too? I have never heard of a theistic chemist or theistic botanist or theistic cosmologist or theistic physisist. But we love to posit theistic evolution. Seems crazy to me.

JLA, the Bible is drenched in Evolution. From Darwin practically plagiarizing the “Go forth and multiply” to the ultimate Evo state of Afterlife. Evolution should be assumed to be Theistic, but it does not hurt to state the obvious by saying Theistic Evolution.

Hi JLAfan. I did not say the Internet would convert every seeker of truth to theism. Perhaps you are not a scientist but when I was in my scientific training, finding answers for things people much smarter and more advanced in their scientific careers than me were dogmatically teaching was tougher than it is now. You say Christianity is dying but I do not believe theism is dying – in fact the opposite.

Those things you mention do not hold up in the same way ool for, far from it. So what if the earth can firm naturalistically (if it really can). Where did the materials come from? Same with stars. What about plants? Show me proof that plant growth arose naturalistically? That is evolution which I am contending. Nothing you say there makes sense and you forget that life and self-conscioisness are the special things I am referring to that I maintain naturalism cannot explain. I never said naturalistic methods cannot explain anything! This argument of yours makes no sense and fails to even acknowledge let alone understand the point I am making.

“It was the internet that made me lose my faith, not helped it. It it wasn’t for the internet, I would be ignornat of all the evidence for evoltuion”

Astounding.

The evidence for evolution was widely disseminated long before there was any internet — in *books*. And even since the internet, there are still hundreds of new books about the evidence for evolution being written every year.

So by admitting that if it weren’t for the internet, he wouldn’t have known about the evidence for evolution, jlafan is admitting that he doesn’t read books.

That would explain much: the horrible spelling, the historical errors (“nomads” wrote the Bible?), the virtually complete lack of knowledge in every subject pertaining to evolution, the complete lack of understanding of what ID is about, and the nearly complete lack of understanding of what Christian faith is about.

This ignorance is just what we would expect of someone who doesn’t read books about history, science, or theology.

But to the vice of ignorance, jlafan has now added another: rudeness. He calls a trained paleontologist “stupid.”

My guess is that Jimpithecus is no longer looking at this thread since he got attacked by an atheist and then did not answer questions by the ID people. But if he is reading this, I have a question for him:

How can you support BioLogos when one of its leading scientists willfully distorts what ID proposes? I am talking about Dennis Venema who is a Fellow of Biology for The BioLogos Foundation who has mischaracterized ID researchers and what they believe.

Maybe it is because you have listened to a distortion of ID claims and not the actual claims. Venema who claims to be a Christian, acts in a very unchristian way.